1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to a network communication technique connecting a substrate processing apparatus performing prescribed processing on a semiconductor substrate, a glass substrate for a liquid crystal display, a glass substrate for a photomask or a substrate for an optical disk (hereinafter simply referred to as “substrate”) and a computer with each other through a network.
2. Description of the Background Art
A product such as a semiconductor device or a liquid crystal display is manufactured by performing a series of processing such as cleaning, resist application, exposure, development, etching, formation of an interlayer dielectric film and heat treatment on a substrate. In general, a substrate processing apparatus having a built-in resist coating unit, a built-in developing unit etc. performs such processing. A transport robot provided on the substrate processing apparatus successively transports a substrate to the respective units, thereby performing the series of processing on the substrate.
Such substrate processing is automatically controlled, and the substrate processing apparatus generally comprises a unit control part individually controlling the processing units in addition to a system control part controlling the overall apparatus. Control software mounted on the substrate processing apparatus is formed by software modules installed in the system control part and the unit control part respectively. In other words, the software module installed in the system control part constructs a system controller controlling the overall apparatus, and the software modules installed in the unit control part construct a unit controller individually controlling the respective processing units.
Each of the software modules installed in the system control part and the unit control part has a specific version. Each software module is intentionally subjected to version upgrades or modifications. The version of a specific software module may be temporarily revised for the convenience of support in a factory having the substrate processing apparatus.
When revising the version of such a software module, it is important to keep matching properties between all software modules installed in the substrate processing apparatus. If no matching properties are kept between the software module, the substrate processing apparatus may malfunction or stop due to trouble in the controller. Therefore, any software module is intentionally subjected to version upgrades while keeping matching properties between the software modules.
In this case, however, a software module of a false version may be installed due to erroneous operation. When the version of a specific software module is temporarily revised on the support site, the structure of the software module may differ from the intended module structure. In this case, matching properties between the software modules may not necessarily be kept, resulting in a failure of the apparatus such as a malfunction or stoppage.
When the substrate processing apparatus causes a failure, an unexpectedly long time may be required for analyzing the cause of the failure unless version information of the software modules mounted on the apparatus is quickly and correctly grasped.
The aforementioned substrate processing apparatus regularly sequentially records various types of information as to operation such as information on substrate processing steps and operational information for an operator as log files.
These log files are recorded every time a predetermined event takes place along with the time of the event, to indicate time-series operation information as to operation of the substrate processing apparatus. Therefore, information on past operation of the substrate processing apparatus can be confirmed post hoc by referring to the contents recorded in the log files. Particularly when the substrate processing apparatus causes a failure, the cause of the failure can be analyzed by referring to the contents recorded in the log files recorded in advance of the failure.
In general, the following procedure is employed in order to deal with a failure taking place the substrate processing apparatus:
1. The operator recognizes the occurrence of the failure through a tower lamp or a buzzer of the substrate processing apparatus.
2. The operator posts the occurrence of the failure to a field service engineer of a vendor.
3. The field service engineer goes to the substrate processing factory having the substrate processing apparatus and grasps the situation of the failure.
4. If the field service engineer cannot deal with the failure ad loc., he/she acquires the log files of the substrate processing apparatus by outputting the same to a recording medium and creates a failure report document indicating the specific situation of the failure.
5. The field service engineer transmits the aforementioned log files and the failure report document to a failure analyst at a remote place such as a support center through an electronic mail or the like.
6. The failure analyst refers to the log files and the failure report document, to analyze the cause of the failure and study a countermeasure against the failure.
7. The failure analyst posts the results of the failure analysis and the countermeasure to the field service engineer.
Thus, also when a failure takes place, it is possible to analyze the cause of the failure by referring to the log files, for taking a proper countermeasure against the failure.
However, a considerable time is required for operation other than the analysis (6) of the cause of the failure through the log files in the aforementioned procedure, leading to requirement for a long time for completing the analysis and posting the countermeasure to the field service engineer. Particularly when a significant failure takes place, the substrate processing apparatus must be stopped over a long time until the countermeasure is posted to the field service engineer, disadvantageously leading to remarkable reduction of the production efficiency for substrates.
A long time is also required for acquiring the log files following the occurrence of the failure. The maximum data quantity of the log files is previously set and hence the recorded contents necessary for analyzing the failure may have already been deleted when the log files are acquired. When rendering the log files preservable over a long period in order to deal with this, the data quantity of the log files acquired upon occurrence of the failure is remarkably increased, leading to a long time required for transmitting the log files to the failure analyst and retrieving the necessary recorded contents.
A substrate processing apparatus having a built-in resist coating unit, a built-in developing unit or the like may previously store countermeasure information against failures assumed therein. This countermeasure information includes the causes of failures, operation methods corresponding to the failures and constraints related to the failures. Thus, even an operator having insufficient knowledge of this apparatus can restore the apparatus from any failure by properly reading the aforementioned countermeasure information following the occurrence of the failure.
However, the substrate processing apparatus stores the countermeasure information as of the date of introduction (shipment) of the apparatus. When an unexpected failure not assumed at the time of introduction or the like takes place, therefore, it may be impossible to properly deal with the failure through the stored countermeasure information. If the apparatus is restored from the failure according to improper countermeasure information, the state of the substrate processing apparatus may be further deteriorated to retard the restoration.
In order to deal with this, the vendor distributes latest countermeasure information newly recognized with reference to failures as additional information through documents or the like. However, this additional information, distributed by mail or the like, cannot be immediately acquired when the latest countermeasure information is necessary.
Further, it follows that the distributed latest countermeasure information is managed independently of the countermeasure information stored in the apparatus and hence the information cannot be unified. Thus, it is difficult to select the latest countermeasure information necessary when a failure occurs in practice.